Wednesday, January 05, 2011

In a recent interview with California Lawyer magazine, United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made what has become a somewhat controversial statement about gender discrimination and the United States Constitution:

You do not need the Constitution to reflect the wishes of the current society. Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn't. Nobody ever thought that that's what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws. You don't need a constitution to keep things up-to-date. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box. You don't like the death penalty anymore, that's fine. You want a right to abortion? There's nothing in the Constitution about that. But that doesn't mean you cannot prohibit it. Persuade your fellow citizens it's a good idea and pass a law. That's what democracy is all about. It's not about nine superannuated judges who have been there too long, imposing these demands on society.

Other commenters have already argued that Justice Scalia's answer to the question is historically questionable or that his attitudes towards proactive lawmaking by the judiciary are selective or even self-contradictory, so we need not discuss that. However, Scalia's statement does raise one further question, which is whether law derived through jurisprudence is automatically undesirable.

I would argue that this is not the case. Certainly from a democratic standpoint, we would all like to see as much law as possible enacted through elected legislative bodies. But Justice Scalia's complaint is about law designed to protect the minority. Although we would hope that our elected representatives will be as enlightened as humanly possible, the phrase "tyranny of the majority" exists for a reason.

Although we all hope - and, one believes, history demonstrates - that legislative bodies will in the long run recognize minority rights, the simple truth is that virtually across the board minority rights have first been achieved through the courts. Brown v. Board of Education and similar decisions preceded civil rights legislation in the United States. R. v. Morgentaler preceded new abortion law in Canada. Halpern v. Canada, and then the Supreme Court's reference on same-sex marriage, preceded the legalization of same-sex marriage here, and one hopes that Perry v. Schwarzenegger will similarly precede the legalization of same-sex marriage in America.

Common-law systems rely on the judiciary to do what the masses often cannot: namely, to consider the needs and wants of minorities whose rights have been imperiled or curtailed, and find if our law is wanting. This is not a perfect system, of course, but without the judiciary's ability to create, in essence, new discrimination law, the net result would be more suffering as individual rights would be trampled upon for a longer period of time. (Possibly a much longer time, if you accept the argument that highly-publicized judicial decisions of this sort can drive public acceptance for the minority right in question.)

Justice Scalia evidently believes that democratic principles trump minority rights, and this is a fair belief to have. But it is not by any means a given.

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ordered National Money Mart Company to pay $30,000 in compensation to a former, one-year employee of the company who had been subjected to ongoing, serious sexual harassment by her workplace supervisor.

With the Ontario Court of Appeal's June 25, 2009 ruling in Slepenkova v. Ivanov, it is now clear that the nearly-universal pronouncements by management lawyers as to the death of Wallace damages after Honda and Keays may have been a bit premature.

In Slepenkova, the Ontario appellate court upheld a two-month notice extension for an employer's bad faith termination, even though no evidence was led at trial as to the specific damages the employee directly incurred as a result of the bad faith. This appeared to place the trial Judge's decision at odds with the new Wallace test set out in Honda.

About WISE LAW BLOG

Wise Law Blogfeatures timely articles on legal developments in Canada and the United States, along with commentary on Canadian politics, American politics, technology and noteworthy current affairs.

Launched on April 5, 2005, Wise Law Blog also highlights key decisions of Canadian courts, with focus on Ontario Family Law, Ontario Employment Law and other areas of interest.

Garry J. Wise is primary contributor to Wise Law Blog. He is a Canadian litigation lawyer who practices with Wise Law Office,Toronto. He is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School and was called to the Ontario Bar in 1986.

Garry's colleagues at Wise Law Office, as well as occasional guest bloggers, also contribute to Wise Law Blog.

Follow Us:

Follow by Email

Terms of Use

The articles and comments on Wise Law Blog are intended to provide general information on current issues and developments in the law. They are not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should not rely upon or act on information in this, or any blog without seeking legal advice as to the matters of specific concern to them. No solicitor and client relationship is created or can be created by accessing, reading or commenting upon any post at this site.

Wise Law Blog is not responsible for and does not necessarily agree with the contents of comments posted by readers of this blog. Such comments represent the personal views of the commenters only, and are included on this blog in the interest of promoting public discourse and a free exchange of ideas. We reserve the right to decline or delete any comment posted on this site which we, in our sole and absolute discretion, deem inappropriate for publication on this site.

CBC | Top Stories

CBC | Canadian News

CBC | Technology & Science News

MSNBC.com: Top MSNBC Headlines

BBC News | News Front Page | World Edition

Wise Law Blog, (c)2005-2010 Garry J. Wise and Wise Law Office, Toronto. All rights are reserved. Permission for reproduction and/or republication of any portion of this publication for solely non-commercial purposes is hereby granted provided any such non-commercial use shall include: (a) credit to the original author(s) thereof; (b) printable, embedded hyperlink to original Wise Law Blog post url. Reproduction and republication of any portion of this publication for commercial purposes is expressly prohibited without the permission in writing of the author(s).